Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TNFSF4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TNFSF4 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TNFSF4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TNFSF4 protein abundance shows 22,575 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where TNFSF4 shows reproducible signals across survival, tumor–normal expression, and patient cross-omics analyses.
Every result is evaluated using two consensus scores. Sampling consensus measures how consistently a finding is reproduced within a cancer lineage across different conditions. Lineage consensus measures how broadly the result is shared across cancer types, distinguishing pan-cancer signals from lineage-specific patterns.
Premium analyses for TNFSF4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TNFSF4 survival associations across molecular data types. TNFSF4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TNFSF4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TNFSF4 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, MESO, ACC, DLBC and LIHC, but favorable associations in SKCM. The KIRP Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRP as the clearest survival context for TNFSF4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TNFSF4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TNFSF4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TNFSF4 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRC, LUAD, STAD and COAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher TNFSF4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.641, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TNFSF4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TNFSF4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TNFSF4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
